(AgapePress) - Pro-family groups are monitoring an extremely important case that opens today before the Massachusetts Supreme Court. They say the outcome could have national ramifications for the definition of marriage.

At stake in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health is whether homosexuals should be guaranteed the right to marry under Massachusetts law. A lesbian couple is suing for full marital rights and recognition. Julie and Hillary Goodridge are members of the Unitarian Universalist Church, which has filed a brief supporting their case. They are one of seven homosexual couples bringing the lawsuit.

According to The Washington Times, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is perceived as liberal and likely favorable to the homosexual plaintiffs.

Ken Connor is head of the Family Research Council (FRC). He says no one should fail to recognize that Massachusetts is merely the starting gate for the homosexual lobby. He says should they prevail in this case, homosexual activists -- under the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution -- will seek to impose the ruling on very other state.

"[M]arriage pre-dates the State of Massachusetts and it has an unchangeable definition: the union of one man and one woman," Connor says. "Any attempt by the court to modify that definition will send our nation on a path where fundamental institutions of our society no longer have definitions, and ultimately, no longer exist."

Of major concern to FRC and other pro-family groups is that activist judges may ignore the will of the majority -- and hundreds of years of how marriage has been defined -- and simply create new legislation that gives the homosexuals what they want.

"The Massachusetts court must recognize that its role is to determine the constitutionality of legislation, not to create legislation itself," he says. "If they mistakenly rule that there is a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry, where will that right end?"

Connor warns that if that happens, it opens the door to polygamists and virtually every other so-called "relationship" to demand the same thing.

Matt Daniels is with the Alliance for Marriage, a Virginia-based group that promotes traditional marriage. Daniels tells Associated Press that if same-sex marriage is legalized, people of faith who believe homosexual behavior is sinful will be branded as bigots. The Alliance for Marriage is calling for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Wrestling on the West Coast At the same time, a pro-family group on the other side of the country continues to battle for traditional marriage. Campaign for California Families (CCF) and several pro-marriage legislators gathered yesterday in Sacramento to expose what it calls "the intolerant face" of several pieces of legislation being pushed by pro-homosexual legislators.

Randy Thomasson is executive director of CCF. He says the five-member "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus" has introduced a series of bills that would redefine traditional marriage.

"This raft of radical homosexual and transsexual agenda bills are intolerant of the sacred institution of marriage and the voters, and discriminate against religious freedom, parental rights, and the Boy Scouts," Thomasson says in a press release.

The bills, he says, would recognize all "civil unions," much like Vermont does currently (AB 205); levy fines up to $150,000 on business owners who refuse to hire transsexuals (AB 196); force businesses doing business with the state to subsidize spousal-equivalent benefits for homosexual employees (AB 17); require foster parents to support pro-homosexual behavior among foster children (AB 458); create a commission that would be empowered to build pro-homosexual displays at veterans' memorials in the state (AB 1520); and award constitutionally protected spousal benefits to unmarried cohabitants in the area of property taxes (SCA 5).

Republican Assemblyman Tim Leslie notes that American society and law has consistently affirmed that the foundational institution of marriage is the most critical relationship of all. "But ... the California Legislature wants to pass these rights around to relationships that are not marriage," Leslie says. "That is wrong.

"Such an action would be contrary to our historical values ... contrary to religious values ... [and] contrary to the will of the people of California as clearly expressed in Proposition 22," he says.

Three years ago, more than 60% of California voters approved Proposition 22, a measure that says only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

"No one should fail to recognize that Massachusetts is merely the starting gate for the homosexual lobby," said Family Research Council President Ken Connor. "Should they prevail in this case, homosexual activists will seek to impose that ruling on every other state, in reliance on the U.S. Constitution's 'full faith and credit' clause.

"The Massachusetts court must recognize that its role is to determine the constitutionality of legislation, not to create legislation itself. If they mistakenly rule that there is a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry, where will that right end? Will polygamists and virtually every other 'relationship' imaginable be guaranteed a right to marry as well?

"The homosexual activists in Massachusetts cite 'extraordinary support' for the recognition of homosexual marriage. Why then has the Massachusetts state legislature been unable to pass a law conveying such 'support'? The answer is, because it does not exist. In fact, just last year an effort to ban homosexual marriage in Massachusetts was supported by more than 60 percent of the state's residents.

"The fact remains that marriage pre-dates the state of Massachusetts and it has an unchangeable definition: the union of one man and one woman. Any attempt by the Court to modify that definition will send our nation on a path where fundamental institutions of our society no longer have definitions, and ultimately, no longer exist."

BURGER, C.J., Concurring OpinionDecisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law . During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed . Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." W. Blackstone, Commentaries . The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

This is essentially not a question of personal "preferences," but rather of the legislative authority of the State. I find nothing in the Constitution depriving a State of the power to enact the statute challenged here.

Thomas Jefferson on Sodomy Sect. XIV. Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy* with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least. Peterson, Merrill D. "Crimes and Punishments" Thomas Jefferson: Writings Public Papers (Literary Classics of the United States, Inc. 1984) pp. 355, 356.

Washington  More than a dozen briefs filed at the United States Supreme Court this week oppose the declaration of a new constitutional right in Lawrence v. Texas. The briefs support Texass sodomy law. Arguments are scheduled for March 26.

"These briefs were filed because we all support the unique stabilizing influence of marriage in our society," said Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, who co-authored a brief with the Center for Original Intent of the Constitution. The Alliance Defense Fund is a national legal non-profit organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, serving people of faith. "Contrary to whats been reported in the mainstream news media, there is a lot of opposition to the cultural drift toward condoning same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage," Lorence said.

Lawrence v. Texas is a direct challenge by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund to the Supreme Courts 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. Bowers said that individuals do not have a federal constitutional right to practice homosexual sex, known as sodomy. Seventeen years later, thirteen states, including Texas, still clearly proscribe sodomy. At one time, every state in the union proscribed sodomy.

Lambda basically uses two arguments for its case. It argues in favor of an expanded right to privacy, building upon the courts controversial 1973 abortion decision, Roe v. Wade. It also argues that same-sex behavior is entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexual behavior.

"Advocates of homosexual behavior would like to use this case to advance their agenda. They want to legalize same-sex marriage, to lift restrictions on homosexual conduct in the military, to legalize adoption by same sex couples, and to restrict free speech rights of individuals who have faith-based objections to endorsing, funding, or supporting homosexual behavior," Lorence said.

Is Same-Sex Marriage Good for the Nation? John Rankinwas raised a secular humanist, an agnostic Unitarian prior to converting to biblical faith in 1967. He holds graduate degrees in theology from Gordon Conwell and Harvard, is author of the three-volume set, First the Gospel, Then Politics..., and is host of the Mars Hill Forum series. He and his wife have been married for nearly twenty-five years and have four children. Website: www.teihartford.com

Well Norm, thank you so much. I'm going to do something a little different than I normally do. Normally I speak extemporaneously, but I'm going to read some things I've written in the last several years to give a foundation for my thinking on this issue. And I find it interesting that we have an open forum tonight where both sides are heard equally. I think you'll find that to be the case. And yet there's a concern that somehow "debate space" is not safe. And I will address that concern as I go along. It is remarkable, though, I never have walked into a forum before to be greeted with such graffiti. And so we have to ask ourselves: the graffiti out there, how safe is that? How gracious, how intelligent is that?

The first thing I want to read is something I wrote about seven, eight years ago called "Human Sexuality and Civil Rights." I wrote this quite a bit prior to the debate over same-sex marriage. And it's a non-binding resolution that I desire to see politically debated. And again, it's entitled "Human Sexuality and Civil Rights." And it goes accordingly.

Whereas:

All persons hold the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, and therefore they hold equal dignity and protection under due process of law; [all people]

And whereas:

The historic family unit, rooted in heterosexual faithful monogamous marriage and the raising of children is the basic institution in society;

And whereas:

There are those who by choice, circumstance, or the brokenness of adversity who are unable to participate fully or partly as members of the historic family unit;

We affirm: [and there are three points of affirmation]

1. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in mutual fidelity;

2. No punitive laws shall exist to restrict private association, whether heterosexual or homosexual; [And there are people on the conservative Christian right that Norm's been talking about tonight who disagree with me on that. You'll find a very strong libertarian ethic, but it's based on a prior definition of equal life for all.] and;

3. All persons shall accept accountability for the public consequences of their private associations and actions, and they shall in no way deprive others of life, liberty, or property.

What I'm saying here is that I disagree with same-sex marriage. I disagree with homosexual relationships. Nonetheless, all people are free to disagree with me as I am with them, so long as we have an understanding of unalienable rights, that everyone has life, liberty and property, free not to be violated by other people. So the real debate comes down to those boundaries. And many acts of a homosexual or heterosexual nature, or other forms of sexuality, do violate life, liberty and property. And I'm equally opposed to all of those because I'm in favor of life, liberty and property. But for those acts of any nature that do not violate them, then people have that freedom in a civil society. And you will not see me pursuing those matters.

The second thing that I want to share with you is a petition that I've circulated around the state. I led off the testimony this year in the statehouse February 11th saying "no" to same-sex marriage. I was part of the same panel last year. And this is actually the summation of my testimony one year ago. And I'll walk through the definition of terms as I go. It's entitled, "Petition to Members of the Connecticut General Assembly."

Yes to man and woman in marriage.

No to same-sex marriage.

[Now an important predicate is, I don't say "no" to anything unless I first say "yes" to something. I think you will find that my agenda is a positive one, and my only concern is to protect life, liberty and property, or should I say, to affirm a government that protects life, liberty and property. I seek to do that myself to begin with. And so the real question is, can we honor these unalienable rights while also coming to a place of difference of interpretation. So my "no" is predicated on a prior "yes."]

As a resident of Connecticut I affirm the following: [and there are four affirmations]

1. In the United States, the civil rights which we all enjoy are rooted in the laws of nature and of nature's God, in the unalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. [I have been in contact with all 187 legislators on this matter, at least five to eight times. I've heard back from 48 of them, and none of them will dispute the statement I just gave to you.]

2. The only source for unalienable rights in all human history is the Creator, the God of the Bible. [I've had a couple of people try to dispute me on this. And some years ago one was Nadine Strossen, who is president of the ACLU. And I said that the only source is the God of the Bible, and she started off that evening, and the topic was homosexuality and civil rights that evening. And she quoted the language from Jefferson, that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And as she quoted that, I said you started at the same source that I started: unalienable rights. And so I just have one simple question. Who is the Creator that Thomas Jefferson was referring to? And Jefferson was a rationalist. He was not by any stretch an evangelical Christian as myself, and yet he and those with him who were from an orthodox Christian background in a Protestant context, appealed to a source higher than King George III. They appealed to the Creator. So I asked Nadine Strossen, who is the Creator? She looked at me and said well, you have your Creator and other people have their Creators. I said no, you've just described polytheism. In other words, that's not the context to which Jefferson was referring to. And if you look at every polytheistic culture in all of human history, they have no concept of unalienable rights. Rights go to those who are in power, whereas the concept of unalienable rights upon which this nation is founded, are rooted in the biblical understanding of the Creator, that says that all people deserve the same rights because they are people, and not because of any other secondary reason.]

3. The God of the Bible defines true marriage as one man, one woman, one lifetime. [This is the order of creation, the image of God.] The health of society is rooted in this foundation.

4. In human history, no society has ever affirmed both homosexuality and unalienable rights. [So here is an intellectual challenge, to track out history, to find out where unalienable rights are affirmed. And if you can find any society that ever has affirmed homosexuality and unalienable rights together, you won't find it.]

Therefore, in order for any member of the Connecticut General Assembly to support legislation that even incrementally moves in the direction of same-sex marriage, he or she must answer these questions.

1. Are civil rights being redefined? 2. If so, why? 3. If so, what is the new basis for these rights? 4. What are the consequences?

Let me just walk through that again real briefly. The argument I'm making is that all of us deserve the same unalienable rights of life, liberty and property. These come from the God of the Bible, the Jewish and Christian Bible. Jews and Christians and others have violated these principles many times in history. We've seen that all over the place. But the Bible is based on these assumptions, and when Jefferson et al. appealed to a higher source than King George III they went back to this source. And so even though they did not emancipate blacks at the time, and Jefferson was conflicted, he knew, a rationalist before he died, he was going to face God's judgment because he had not released his slaves and not treated them equally. Women's suffrage had not yet come into place. And yet, both the equality of all people regardless of races, and the equality of male and female are rooted in Genesis 1 and 2, the God of creation. This is my thesis at Harvard University, where my focus was on feminist ethics. And so, they appealed to the right source even if they didn't get it correct. And so despite all the violations of which there are many, we have to ask ourselves this question. If we are going to redefine marriage in a way inconsistent with the author of unalienable rights, then some other source for rights in the civil order must be produced.

The final thing I want to share with you, and I will read this to you, is an article that I wrote, oh, maybe a month ago. And it will explain itself as I go along. It's entitled "A Painful Silence on the Matter of Same-Sex Marriage."

When the debate concerning same-sex marriage is embraced, there is a painful silence at certain key junctures. Or to put it another way, the issue is advanced politically by certain advocates, who then do not want a full, intelligent, gracious and honest dialogue. On February 11, before the Judiciary Committee at the State Capitol in Hartford, Connecticut, I led off a panel that opposed two bills then being considered to advance same-sex marriage or facsimile. These bills have been conceived in the direct shadow of the "civil union" legislation already enacted in Vermont.

As part of my testimony I told a story concerning my postgraduate studies at Harvard Divinity School. I was taking a class in feminist ethics. During lunch one day, three women from my class sat down with me. One said, "You know, John, for an evangelical, you're a nice guy." She then continued, with an unsolicited and previously untouched subject. She said that she and her two friends were lesbian, and that every lesbian they knew had been physically, sexually and/or emotionally abused by some man in her youth, usually a live-in boyfriend to mom, a stepfather or some other adult male who had access to the household.

I remember praying in my spirit at that exact moment, "Dear God above, has the church heard this testimony, or do we merely condemn?" Now, the statement of these lesbians at Harvard is not a statistical claim for all lesbians. But they lived in an academic and social milieu in which they knew very many lesbians from around the country. Thus, it was an honest anecdote, the substance of which is known to many male and female homosexuals alike.

I believe the desire for same-sex marriage is often rooted in the partial or total loss of a childhood in which a married father and mother loved and respected each other as complements and equals, and accordingly, loved their children. The answer to such loss or abuse is not to redefine marriage downward, but to strengthen marriage to its best possibilities, to a mutual fidelity between a man and a woman that lasts a lifetime. What child does not naturally want a loving mommy and a loving daddy at home?

Only a small portion of avowed homosexuals favor same-sex marriage. This according to their own research. Yet for those who do, I believe they are often seeking some sort of family structure in which they are safe from abuse, an ersatz replacement for the family they lost, or never had, in part or in whole. And I can only respect the desire for such safety. Nonetheless, we are male and female, and all children need a father and a mother to ensure their healthiest development. It is not right to change our laws to suit the real pain of adults who suffered such a deprivation as children. The proper course is to strengthen true marriage. The research is clear: Children without a married mother and father at home fare more poorly than children from intact families. And it is hard enough to address the many needs here, especially when single parent households are so often a result of male irresponsibility and/or promiscuous lifestyles.

What this means is that same-sex marriage, and the raising of children in such households, only perpetuates a cycle of brokenness. Thus, for the sake of all people, marriage between a man and a woman in mutual fidelity is the goal at which society should aim. To lower our sights and legally codify same-sex relationships is to redefine marriage downward in a cycle of multiplying pain across the generations.

I gave my testimony in a packed hearing room, and there were two overflow rooms utilized as well. Most of the main hearing room was filled with same-sex "marriage" advocates (they had their identifying stickers), and most of these advocates were women. I faced the Judiciary Committee, seated at a desk, with the audience behind me. When I mentioned the testimony of the three Harvard lesbians, there was an audible gasp across the whole room. Friends of mine in the audience later told me that the gasp was visibly registered on the faces of these women advocates, women who then literally held their breath until I moved on to the next portion of my remarks.

What does this say? It points out to me the deep pain that so many homosexuals deal with, and I had dared to touch that pain. The lesbians in the hearing room were caught off guard with such an accurate diagnosis, at least in testimonial context, and fearful of its further exploration. And why do I risk the touching of such pain? Because this is the nature of love, of loving God and loving my neighbor as myself. Biblical ethics celebrate unalienable rights for all people -- life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Biblical ethics celebrate the image of God in all people -- the universal pursuit of peace, order, stability and hope; to live, to love, to laugh and to learn. But these ethics also root the fulfillment of the image of God in the nature of marriage as one man and one woman in mutual fidelity, from the order of creation -- given by the same Creator in whom unalienable rights are uniquely located. Thus, to touch such pain, is to identify reality and to encourage true healing.

None of the media, which gave extensive coverage to this hearing, quoted this portion of my testimony. So I composed an op-ed piece for the Hartford Courant. They accepted it, even offered to pay me for it, but at the last moment pulled it. Well, that is their prerogative -- they can publish what they please. The real issue is much deeper: Why the silence on this matter? What is the depth of the painful gasps unearthed by the public recognition of such abuse? I have addressed forums on controversial subjects on many university campuses. Yet homosexual advocates are the least likely to embrace any sort of public dialogue.

For those of us who affirm the positive social good of man and woman in marriage, and thus say no to homosexuality, how do we conduct ourselves in the face of such a debate? We must genuinely desire not one inch of greater liberty to speak what we believe than we first commend to those who disagree with us. This is the Golden Rule in political context. And if we are met with a wall of silence, what does that tell us? In 18 years of public policy ministry, I have directly communicated with very many avowed homosexuals. Many of them struggle with and would like to overcome such a propensity, and for those homosexuals who are not public about it, I believe the ratio is higher yet. When silence by homosexual advocates is the response, we know that the soul has been deeply touched, and it shows the rest of society, and especially closeted homosexuals, that the pain is at least reasonably understood. And from there, a shared humanity can be better embraced in pursuit of the common good.

To sum up, three points from my testimony this evening. Ah, I'm not before the Judiciary Committee, so it's not a testimony -- it's my statement. Why do I believe same-sex marriage is not good for the nation? Three reasons.

Number 1. It codifies and does not deal with a cycle of human pain.

Number 2. It de facto opposes the unique basis for unalienable rights upon which this nation is founded. Destroy unalienable rights and the whole nation is destroyed as well.

Liar??! His studies may not have been orthodox, and many are...yet not demonized by the homosexual lobby within the APA, but that doesnt prove his studies (especially ALL of his studies) are wrong does it? His studies are cited by many legitimate organizations and many other accepted studies. If hes a liar then produce a study/studies that DEBUNK any of his studies.

The APA frequently cites Bailey/Pillard, a study discredited by Bailey himself, a study where there was no control group, a study where the sample was solicited volunteers from the gay community. You and the APA are hypocrites to support any study that uses poor methodology, lets throw in the Hooker Study too, and then condemn Cameron for his methodology.

"Legitimate"? I'm not aware of Cameron's results being cited by anyone other than "Christian" organizations.

I'm not aware of Bailey discrediting his own study, and I find no mention of it, via Google, by the usual suspects - Leadership U, Messiah.edu, FRC, Stonewall Revisted. I assume you mean the "twins study"... unless you're talking about his comment that there "must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins", which is a big DUH! and hardly a discrediting or debunking of anything other than the claims of amatuers and activists.

Sorry to rely on Herek, but he's the most promintent person to bother with Cameron; scientists without an agenda tend to ignore him altogether it seems. I'm sure you wouldn't find JoeBlow on a newsgroup to be any sort of convincing expert. (I wouldn't.)

Clinton didn't lie about "everything", but would you buy a used car from him or cite him as an expert on anything? So why continue to use Cameron? Because his lies are something you want to hear? They're still lies.

An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year. The same study indicated the number of annual sexual partners averaged nearly 100. Homosexuals averaged, per year, fellating 106 different men and swallowing 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and 72 penile penetrations of the anus. (Corey, L, and Holmes, K.K., "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, vol 302: 435-438; as quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

Dear Remedy,
Please keep me ON your ping list - gives me more info to use! I am keeping it all in files.
It is so amazing that people can interpret as hate reasoned arguments proving that homosexual behavior is harmful to the health of individuals and societies, and that people can change!
I think it is hateful to tell young kids that if they have one feeling or thought of attraction to the same sex that means they are forever-carved-in-stone "gay" and can never change. That they must now enter the "gay" community with no hope of escape. Now that is a hate-filled message. No wonder so many young people are depressed.

"Legitimate"? I'm not aware of Cameron's results being cited by anyone other than "Christian" organizations.

Christian organizations are not legitimate? Ever hear of the therapy part of psychotherapy??? why isnt it any less legitimate than what the soft sciences contribute to the criteria of curing any other behavioral disorder? As long as therapy helps to have no anxiety, psychosocial functioning and a positive well-being is achieved, as set forth by the APA, what do you care how its achieved? Oh thats right, it blows big holes in your APA crutch. Now what were those studies that DEBUNK any of NARTHs, AFAs, et al research studies? maybe theyre with the studies that DEBUNK Cameron.

I'm not aware of Bailey discrediting his own study, and I find no mention of it, via Google, by the usual suspects -

"As commented in the book My Genes Made Me Do It!, it, the other registry study (Hershberger (1)), and the other volunteer studies, all contradict each other, and Bailey now believes that the volunteer studies have rather bad biases in them. "

I think this is pretty much self-discredited wouldnt you? No Christian influence here, I dont even see the usual suspect condemning the book.

Now perhaps you can show me how Dr Neil Whitehead, an eminently qualified research scientist with twenty-five years experience and Briar Whitehead a researcher and journalist are amatuers and activists. They are cited all over the place.

Sorry to rely on Herek,

You mean the politically active homosexual psychologist?

but he's the most promintent person to bother with Cameron; scientists without an agenda tend to ignore him altogether it seems.

Sorry, like I said, pinging someone for methodology is like the grammer police discrediting the substance of a post on FreeRepublic. Now show me the study that DEBUNKS, not discredits, any of Camerons studies or finds him a liar and you have a case. Still waiting!!!

I'm sure you wouldn't find JoeBlow on a newsgroup to be any sort of convincing expert. (I wouldn't.)

Was JoeBlow formerly a member in good standing in the APA, if so howd he get there? Quitting the APA doesnt constitute culpability unless youre part of the witch-hunt, i.e. the homosexual activists at the APA, so in reality, JoeBlow isnt remotely comparable to Paul Cameron is it?

Clinton didn't lie about "everything", but would you buy a used car from him or cite him as an expert on anything? So why continue to use Cameron? Because his lies are something you want to hear? They're still lies.

Prove the lies or shut up, SHOW ME THE STUDY!; your homosexual pathology is tainting your grasp on reality Josh, and your hysterical libel isnt anything more than a pathetic attempt to justify your perversion.

Now what were those studies that DEBUNK any of NARTHs, AFAs, et al research studies.

We were talking about Cameron.

About Bailey: I'd have to see the actual quote, in context, not some paraphrase in commercially-driven agenda-ridden claptrap. Point of fact: all... that is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of "volunteer studies" have "rather bad biases in them". In fact, the phenomena even has a name: "volunteer error".

You mean the politically active homosexual psychologist?

That would be the one. And we've been over his reliability before, and unless you've come up with some new information that anything he says about Cameron is incorrect...

Sorry, like I said, pinging someone for methodology is like the grammer police discrediting the substance of a post on FreeRepublic.

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? Without proper methodology, all results are invalid: it's a little more important than quibbling over the use of "its". Scientists know this.

"Quitting the APA". Not going to argue it, can't prove it one way or the other. Now, about the Nebraska Psycological Association, the American Sociological Association and the court findings that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron"?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.